Framing effects in managerial third‐party intervention: an exploratory study

Abstract

PurposeThis paper seeks to examine the role of framing effects and the third‐party's need for consistency in intervention strategy selection in managerial dispute intervention. The objective is to move research forward by adopting a decision‐making perspective of dispute intervention and examining the role of framing in such a context.Design/methodology/approachA scenario‐based experimental approach was used and data were collected on 318 intervention cases from 106 students majoring in business, and enrolled in a medium‐sized public university.FindingsResults suggest that framing does influence the selection of intervention strategies to some extent, but the third‐party's need for consistency between his/her preferred settlement and the actual final settlement plays a bigger role in influencing strategy selection.Research limitations/implicationsThis study higlights the merits of adopting a decision‐making perspective to understand managerial dispute intervention and points to the need for extending and testing more of the key concepts from that area of research.Practical implicationsThe results indicating support for a need for consistency on the part of managerial third‐parties as well as the influence of framing underscore the need for managers to be aware of these factors influencing their conflict management behaviours and to strive to “rise above the fray”.Originality/valueThe results of this paper challenge the conventional view that third‐parties in disputes are generally more objective and can see the “big picture”, and represents a valuable first step towards gaining a better understanding the role of cognitive biases and heuristics in managerial dispute intervention.